Posted
by
kdawsonon Tuesday July 10, 2007 @07:18PM
from the more-pliable-than-spoons dept.

JagsLive writes in with a Fox News report about Uri Geller's apparently playing fast and loose with copyright law in order to silence his detractors. "'All it takes is a single e-mail to completely censor someone on the Internet,' said Jason Schultz, a lawyer for the online civil rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing Geller over an unflattering clip posted on YouTube for which he claimed a copyright ownership."

In truth, I wouldn't want Geller anywhere near a craps table. Despite his claims to the contrary, he is a talented magician who has some skill at controlling the throw of the dice.

Indeed, one "psychic experiment" had him actually touching and throwing the dice while he predicted the outcome. Of course, they found that he could predict the outcome better than chance would predict. Well, duh! Next they're going to tell us is that he can make
two chr

"Psychic wins three different kinds of lotteries in three separate states, as well as substantial bets on horse races. Psychic gently asked to knock it the fuck off and let somebody else win something for a change."

Geller is well-known for his sports predictions. However, Uri Geller sceptic James Randi and British Tabloid The Sun (among others), have demonstrated the teams and players he chooses to win most often lose.

Abuse of the DMCA through fraudulent takedown notices should result in no less of a penalty than an actual violation of copyright. If a copyright owner can collect $150K per instance of copyright violation, then someone who fraudulently claims copyright on an item they do not in fact have a copyright on should be up against the same penalty.

"The trick is that you are breaking the law when you knowingly send notices for videos that you don't hold the copyrights," Reyes said. "It's a good solution."

Problem is, someone has to take them to court. Can you see YouTube standing up for your fair-use rights in the face of a takedown notice? Me either. And unless there are monetary penalties (can anyone point to some DMCA-abuse or takedown-notice-abuse cases that have been successfully fought? And resulted signific

Yes, but YouTube also doesn't follow the provisions of the law that say that if the poster of the material reply's back with a statement claiming ownership and authoritative information about who they are that will allow the claimer of copyright to sue then YouTube can then repost the material until a court order is obtained. In fact NONE of the ISP's follow this second provision of the law and I haven't seen one that once provided this lawfull statement will repost the material. If someone like the victim here hired a lawyer and sued YouTube for violation of the safeharbor rules then there would be posted procedures for waiving the DCMA notice.

I can't argue too much on that basis, though it's somewhat understandable since a) these ISPs typically make users "sign" agreements that basically say YouTube (or whomever) can pull their content whenever they feel like it (it just happens that they "feel like it" when someone sends them a DMCA notice) and b) they have every reason to be scared that some RIAA/MPAA asshat will tie them, and their financial resources, up in court for years and little reason to fear the same from their users.

then YouTube can then repost the material until a court order is obtained.

Not must, but rather, is allowed to. What's the gain for YouTube to repost the file? Marginal at best. What's the risk to them? Potentially huge, if successful lawsuits end up eroding their pageviews because people are afraid to post files.

Most of the time, a DMCA notice results in the material being taken down, no lawsuit occurs. A string of successful suits against YouTube posters is bad publicity. he fact that

No one with an ounce of intelligence is going to reclaim ownership on something they don't actually own or where this is no real dispute of ownership. The statement you file back is a sworn document and could be used bring perjury charges if the reclaim is seen to be completely bogus. So the issue of posters being sued for reclaiming ownership and losing in my opinion would be non-existent and if someone did you could in fact use the claim as justifiable evidence of compromised judgment or mental instability. In fact I believe so strongly this wouldn't occur with any sane individual where no real dispute of ownership exists that I would say there is a good chance the Judge would order a mental evaluation of the original poster for making such a ridiculous statement.

YouTube and the other providers don't respond to reclaiming ownership simply because probably nobody has followed the letter of the law and issued the secondary claim of ownership. Under a system where the provider reacts under the law once the second claim of ownership is received and the provider reposts the disputed content the provider is still covered under the Safe Harbor terms. In fact implementing an easy system to submit these "repost" notices with instructions to the users on the exact framing and terms that must be used to meet the letter of the law and who to submit it to at YouTube would go miles to help users understand that the DCMA isn't some evil instrument of big organizations but actually a pretty fair law (for copyright holders, big or small) that helps protect copyright while handling the issue that it's often difficult to identify individuals on the internet. The DMCA take down notice is nothing more than a statement saying take "x" down until the person who posted it identifies themselves to me so I can sue them to get an injunction. If you legitimately own the copyright it SHOULD be a slam dunk to reverse the take down notice and both individuals then know who's involved so they can start REAL court proceedings without anyone being able to claim it was someone other than themselves.

I actually think the DMCA is a very balanced (in the sense of size of the participants) law, in that it recognizes the difficulty in identification on the internet and uses probably the least invasive technique to allow immediate hosting of content and the protection of copyright with minimal delays. Under pre-DCMA terms you would have had to sue the provider to get the name of the poster, then launch a suit against the poster and ask for an injunction on the posting to get it down (probably 2 weeks or more under the most expedited court proceeding ever). With the simplified procedure you simply issue a sworn statement claiming ownership, the provider takes it down and notifies the poster, the poster then claims ownership and provides name, address etc... (to make a lawsuit easier to file) and the provider can then repost the material without fear of being liable for hosting the content. Then the two claimants go to court, one side proves ownership and an injunction is issued to the provider to take down and not repost the material or the original claim is voided and an injunction is issued against further claims of ownership. This way the copyright owner gets to find out who put it up, or it goes away immediately, the provider isn't liable and in the case where someone claims ownership and doesn't own it, the material can then be reposted very quickly and the original claimant then has to decide if they think their claim is strong enough to go to court or if the original poster actually owned the copyright and felt they were damaged by the false claim they could then sue the claimant to recover the damages.

As I said, if it was handled correctly by the providers these incidents wouldn't occur frequently, and could be corrected VERY quickly and the claimants would be forced into highly stupid lawsuits.. It wouldn't be difficult IMO if you had filmed that sequence with Uri Geller to take him to court for damages, and in the case of such a blatantly false claim you could probably get punitive damages for Uri committing perjury in claiming ownership when he in fact he didn't have copyright.

YouTube doesn't have to do anything. They can continue to follow the law and respond to the takedowns as they always have. Then the actual copyright holder can sue whoever issued the fraudulent takedown notice. Back when Viacom was blanketing YouTube with takedown notices, many of which were for material they didn't own, think of the billions of dollars that could have been siphoned from that company. Attorney's salivate over that kind of thing.

Considering that if you own the copyright and someone claims they own the copyright and interferes in your business they have violated your copyright I would say you CAN sue for $150k, and there is also probably an additional tort for the interference with your business relationship with your hosting provider.What you are really saying is that you wish someone would take someone to court for a false DCMA notice and win a large judgement, thus setting a public precedent that will scare others into not abusin

Similarly, nobody would remember Geller exists if he didn't do idiotic things like this from time to time.He's an attention whore, plain and simple, and these lawsuits are doing exactly what he's hoping they will.

I suppose this is a bit of a shallow comment, but I love the Internet because when people do abusive things like Uri Geller and his unwarranted Youtube video removals, mass media will never/barely cover it. However the masses of the internet can show everyone what a tool Geller and others really are.

One solution that exists in the RIAA versus filesharer cases is that the RIAA has to provide a copyright registration certificate proving ownership of a song before they can proceed in court. Internet takedown notices should also require a certificate of copyright registration to accompany them. This one small step alone would likely stop 98% of the takedowns requested. While copyright itself does not require registration, if you don't care enough to register it, you shouldn't care enough to try to take it down afterwards.

U.S. copyright law, as of 1979, does not require a work to be registered in order to be copyrighted. It doesn't even have to have a copyright notification on it. Any work is copyrighted from the moment of creation. hence, this post of mine is copyrighted. Your kid's kindergarten fingerpainting is copyrighted. If you walk down the street and whistle a tune that you made up on the spot, it's copyrighted. So, no certification to show.

While copyright itself does not require registration, if you don't care enough to register it, you shouldn't care enough to try to take it down afterwards.

I call bullshit.

I recorded a video of my cat [youtube.com] a while ago and posted it to YouTube. Copies of it have sprouted up far and wide, uploaded to YouTube and Google Video and all sorts of other places. It got so bad that someone started sending around a bogus e-mail [snopes.com] with the video attached.

It's just a cat flushing the toilet, right? Why should I care?

Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work. It's intolerable to me for others to get to take the credit, but any procedure more costly or onerous than the takedown procedure already in place would not be worth it. And the result would be that I would be disincented to create works and post them to YouTube. So much for promoting the useful arts.

I do agree that those who abuse the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and send bogus take-down notices need to be walloped. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work. It's intolerable to me for others to get to take the credit, but any procedure more costly or onerous than the takedown procedure already in place would not be worth it. And the result would be that I would be disincented to create works and post them to YouTube. So much for promoting the useful arts.

Wait, you're saying that a few greedy people would prevent you from doing something altruistic just to spite them? I guess that's just hu

Taking your ideas on is fine. But how do you feel if someone takes something you wrote, changes the byline (and nothing else) and posts it as their own? That would be perfectly ok with you because it would demonstrate how much they totally agree with you?

Re the ease of censoring on the net- It is quite scary how easily controlled most people's internet access (including my own, really) could be. People often think the internet is this robust, uncensorable system, because of old stories about being "designed to withstand a nuclear attack" and all that. That kind of applied when most network nodes were in universities and research labs, who were owner/operators of routing nodes with peering agreements with eachother. Nowadays, the vast majority of people on the internet are "edge nodes", connected to a single corporate ISP. So it's basically degenerated to a star/tree topology at the "home" level. No longer resistant to control, in fact facilitating control by establishing choke points. Blind, complacent faith in the "power" of the internet to "interpret censorship as damage and route around it" as the adage used to go, when that power is being neutered further with each upgrade cycle and your own only routing consists of sending stuff upstream on your sole connection to your sole ISP, is probably not a good idea. What can one do? Learn about wireless mesh networking fast I guess...

It also turned out that Geller owned no more than eight seconds of the 13 minutes of video, according to Geller's own court filings.

IANAL by I know people are allowed to copy a small percentage for fair use. 8 seconds in 13 minutes sounds like it would fall within that margin.

Re-read the sentence you're quoting. It says that Geller only owned 8 seconds out of 13 minutes, not that only 8 seconds of his 13 minute video were used. In fact the whole 13 minutes was posted, including 100% of the 8 seconds he claimed to own. (I still think he's full of shit on fair use grounds, but not for the reasons you cite).

To be honest, it sounds like it's immature, but I simply cannot think of a better term to describe him that douchebag. This assclown goes back to the 1970's when he claimed he could bend spoons, keys and such with his mind. He claimed he could see things and do all other kinds of stuff. It's been debunked to death. Despite the fact that he was a good enough conman to get some scientists to even become intrigued. This analwart's stupid antics have been caught on take, in the act and yet somehow he ca

He unsuccessfully sued longtime nemesis James "Amazing" Randi at least three times for defamation, stemming from Randi's own efforts to unmask Geller as a fraud, and lost several other cases lodged against his critics throughout the years.

I find it funny when the term fraud and magic are in the same sentence. I might be a little fuzzy on the exact legal definition of fraud. But people know magic is fake, and that it's an illusion done for entertainment. No magician is fraudulent unless he is specifically

You must not be familiar with Uri Geller, but he claims he can really do this stuff without any magician styled tricks. That's why people like Randi go after him, because he is a fraud. (Damn, now he's going to sue ME for defamation!)

That's all fine and well, but IIRC Randi wasn't suing him for fraud, but trying prevent people from becoming mindless followers of Randi and buying into his hokey pseudo-religion. Secondly, it is debatable whether or not "people know magic is fake". Crossing Over, Faith Healers, Scientology, or most aspects of religion that people seem to get most caught up in, altogether garner the support and beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people. Randi is more or less concerned with protecting these damned fools from themselves, or at least providing them with an rational alternative from which they can choose.

If you've ever followed the details regarding incidents involving Geller that have happened over the past few decades you'd realize how what he does can be a dangerous thing.

The difference is that Uri is claiming that the things he does are real and not illusions done for entertainment - and he had apparenly even been given government money in Israel for this to set up some kind of psychic academy. Making false claims to get money is how I would define fraud.

He also sends in the lawyers in situations where others would not bother with sometimes bizzare consequences. Some pokemon from the Japanese TV series (with a bent spoon) was named after him - he sued and they named it so

Exposing Uri Geller's spoon bending as fake is like exposing Pamela Anderson's breasts as fake. What's the point? It spoils the fun, and those who still think it's real aren't going to be convinced anyway.

Indeed, let's let people have all their new, demonstrably false religions so that maybe in a thousand or so years we can have yet more groups of irrational zealots doing violence on unbelievers. Ignorance isn't a good thing, whether it's in you, your next-door neighbor or some poor douchebag on the other side of the planet.

The difference is that true magicians admit they're illusionists. Part of the contract with their audience is that they will fool them and that the audience will try to figure out their tricks. Geller does not claim to be a magician. He claims to actually do what he appears to be doing with the power of his mind.

It's funny. Some "psychics" genuinely seem to believe in their own "powers", apparently mistaking intuition and cold reading skills for ESP. But Geller is different. Not only is he a fraud, he knows he's a fraud. If Geller really believed in his "powers", he'd be trying to demonstrate them in laboratory conditions, if only to embarrass James Randi. But he doesn't believe in his "ability", so he lies and sues people, and thanks to his attempted censorship of this expose, more and more people have learned abo

He claims to actually do what he appears to be doing with the power of his mind.

I wonder whatever happened to the online challange from a few years back where a live webcam was locked into a safe with something else. The challange was to move things in the locked safe with the mind.

I haven't heard anything about it in years. I don't think anybody moved anything in the safe.

Well, then you're still including folks like Uri Geller in the unethical category then.

1. Uri Geller himself claims that he has been employed by some companies to dowse for minerals or oil, though none actually admitted it. I'm sorry, but if that's true, that's _exactly_ fraud. He's taken some money for a service he can't provide, and based on some qualifications which are bogus.

2. There is a lot of damage done even indirectly in claiming to actually have psychic powers or being able to see into the future, for example by convincing people to lose their money on predictions and courses of action which don't work.

E.g., Uri Geller himself often tells people on what sports teams to bet, but it turns out most of the time his picks lose. E.g., dowsing, in addition to the money actually taken for providing that bogus service, usually results in a company wasting a lot of money to actually drill there. The whole buying the rights, hauling the equipment there, salaries, etc, adds up to a fair sum.

And while in this case it just boils down to money and faceless corporations, so I can imagine some people wouldn't feel much empathy there, but other quacks cause a lot more damage to normal people like you and me. E.g., psychic healers and the like routinely tell people to stop taking medicine, and are responsible for quite a few deaths. There have been even cases where some psychic or "holistic" healer quack told even people with _cancer_ to not have an operation, not take medicine, and ffs not even take the pain killers. So the they effectively have on their conscience (that is, if they had a conscience) causing someone to die in horrible pain over several months. How's that for damage done?

Way I see it, even if it's not done for money, convincing people to do harm to themselves is still morally wrong. And society as a whole already decided that the worst cases of it should be illegal. E.g., entrapment is not just morally wrong, but legally wrong too. E.g., claiming to be a medical doctor without a diploma is illegal in most places. Etc.

I don't have a problem there with those who admit they're just doing entertainment tricks, because then the audience knows it's just entertainment and won't base their RL decisions on it. E.g., not many people go and stake someone because they just saw a vampire movie. But claiming such powers to be real and giving people advice from a position of knowledgeable authority is an entirely different thing.

3. A lot of the charlatans claiming powers and secret knowledge are busy overtly attacking science and the scientific method, to make it easier for themselves to get their credentials accepted. This causes society as a whole a lot more harm than you'd think. If nothing else, by making more people susceptible to be harmed by the con artists from points 1 and 2.

But then that's the happy case, if only that was the damage done. It often causes people in positions of power and responsibility to put their funding and support in the quack camp, instead of doing some real science. When I hear stuff like corporations using numerology to thin the candidates pool, or using dowsing to find out where to drill next, that's not just directly X money which could be used on a more scientific approach and maybe discover something. That's also indication of a state of mind of trusting quacks over scientists, and I just don't see that company investing in scientific research the rest of the time.

To get back to Uri Geller, again, that's what he actively does all the time. To establish his credentials as the uber-psychic, he _has_ to attack the normal science, and that he does plenty.

So basically, to wrap this long rant up, there is no such thing as merely "hard" and "soft" psychics. "Hard" in that case invariably means a con artist who, directly or indirectly, does actual harm and is morally reprehensible in doing so. The question isn't just whether they bluff about their actual talents, but what actual harm they do based on that claim, or to support that claim.

There's a team of online bloggers trying to debunk a magician? Don't they have anything better to do? Come on, some people want to believe in magic, let them. Everyone else knows it's all slight of hand.

Some people also want to believe that that they can make millions from helping out an exiled Nigerian dissident through email. Everyone else knows it's a scam.

Geller does not claim to be a magician, he claims to actually posses mental powers. While many of us know this is silly, many people believe it, and are victimized because of it.

Dude, get off your high horse. Everyone comes in to this world knowing exactly jack and shit. All a brain is is some tissue on the end of a stick, once I realized that I found that I have nothing but sympathy for every creature who has to figure out this world with only that as their tool.

The problem is that most people DON'T try to figure out this world with their brain. They look around themselves and find the world is a confusing place, so they don't think about it - they refuse to think analytically about anything, they just develop through trial-and-error a set of reactions to various situations that gets them through almost anything. Then they cruise through life, without a reasoned or complete worldview, just waiting for the weekends so they can get drunk and think even less.

The problem is that most people DON'T try to figure out this world with their brain. They look around themselves and find the world is a confusing place, so they don't think about it - they refuse to think analytically about anything, they just develop through trial-and-error a set of reactions to various situations that gets them through almost anything.

Ooh, I was almost with you up until that part.

Most people don't refuse to think analytically. They've just never learned, and their life experiences have not yet shown them the value of acquiring that skill. (Public schools tend to do that.)

Assuming a condescending tone about the Great Unwashed shows, if anything, a lack of analytic thought about the factors that lead to an individual's ability for rational thought, or at least a lack of applying that thought to one's own life. While there are certainly some people (and, in my experience, a terribly small few) who have the ability for reasoned, analytic thought and actually refuse to use it when it would benefit themselves and others, they are vastly outnumbered by people who see no value in that ability which they lack, and may never have the experiences which lead individuals to see that value. Why condemn another based on the intelligence with which fate has bestowed them?

I don't think refuse is too strong a word at all. Most people aren't presented with an actual choice to think or not, but when they are they usually do actively refuse. Example: At work just a few days ago I got drawn into a political/religious discussion with a few people of probably average intelligence, and when two of them said they "didn't believe" in evolution simply because they didn't think we evolved from apes, we had quite a discussion about it. I tried several ways to break it down and figure out which part of the theory they didn't believe, or why they didn't believe it, or whether they distrusted the scientific method in general, and every time both of them very carefully avoided thinking about my points or explaining their position - every time they came to a point where a stock answer they'd read somewhere or heard in a sermon failed they brought it back to "well, I just don't think we came from apes, it's my belief."

I went to Catholic school for 13 years, and several times per day we were reminded of the mysteries of the Trinity and whatnot that we couldn't understand, so we weren't to try. We learned about all the "heretics" who managed to formulate the Church's teachings into something coherent and were sentenced to an eternity in hell. I still hear those things at church every week. This is the religion of a sixth of the world's population.

50% of the population has above-average intelligence. There aren't many people who are genuinely incapable of understanding the world, but there are many who don't bother to try.

I wonder why you'd get into such a discussion at work. But then, your work environment would be a pretty alien place (I work in informatics with a bunch of university professors...)Beside the point though. Man didn't "evolve from apes."

Man and Ape have a common ancestor, and the divergence was very, very long ago - probably 8 million years ago.

Phylogenists do not put forth the claim that "man evolved from apes."

Hey I went to Catholic school too -- an abbey school staffed by Cistercian monks who were among

I tried to explain that, but one didn't listen and the other didn't understand. I also tried to make clear that the common ancestor would have been classified as an ape, but would be different from modern apes, but that was lost too.

That might make a good bumper sticker, but it's not a realistic or reasonable way of looking at the curve.

Why not? Intelligence is normally distributed, isn't it? The mean and median should be close enough as makes no difference.

I tried to explain that, but one didn't listen and the other didn't understand.

Use a food analogy! Cheese and cake. Both had milk as a common ancestor, at some point there was a divergence. Milk became cheese and milk became cake, but cheese did not go into the cake. Unless you're making, like.. cheesecake, but it's best not to bring that up.

I'm not denying that ignorance is bliss - but that only works for an individual. If all of mankind were blissfully ignorant we'd lack many happiness-inducing inventions like heat and the Grateful Dead.

By the way, why can't you enjoy movies? I know how they're made, and I still enjoy them. Are you watching good movies, or movies like Titanic and 300?

Individual acts of stupidity and ignorance don't hurt, but collectively they do. You're right that I shouldn't care that a single person believes in magic or religion, but I do care if everyone does. Think globally, act locally.

And I don't change people. I explain myself; they choose to change if they wish.

And why does this bother you? You and all other slashdotters can sit there in your almighty knowing worlds and look down on the common man who believes in religion, magic or whatever.

Ok, I will.

Seriously though, we don't like seeing people conned out of their money. And honestly, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I'd like the human race to go somewhere special. This kind of ridiculousness is holding our species back from a higher, more important existence.

Who has it so good that they can just cruise through life? Even Paris Hilton's been to jail.

...without a reasoned or complete worldview...

No one has a reasonable or complete world view. I'm betting that right now there is a bit of information about the Universe out there that will completely change everything we think the Universe is when we discover it.

...just waiting for the weekends so they can get drunk and think even less.

No one has a reasonable or complete world view. I'm betting that right now there is a bit of information about the Universe out there that will completely change everything we think the Universe is when we discover it.

Plenty of people have reasonable and/or complete worldviews, and any fact about the universe which comes to light will, though previously unknown, be consistent with our current understanding. If it's not, then we've made some seriously anomalous observations, all of which have been consisten

That's my point. These people fall for this because they don't think critically. They want to believe, no matter how absurd the "product". Politicians are huckster because it works. If it didn't, they would be honest, but that's not what the voters want. They want tax cuts and entitlements. Those who promises those things, regardless of their real intent, will win. That is not the fault of the huckster. Adam and Eve were sinners, not victims. I say let the devil run loos

That just isn't true. This isn't "if you support free speech you must allow Larry Flint". There's also the minor quibble as to who actually owns the copyrights, if anyone. Abusing the DMCA to purge something unflattering is not the same thing as being a legitimate copyright holder excersising their rights. I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for a supposed copyright by a participant in a publi

Oh, bullshit. If he actually owned the copyright, could demonsrate said ownership and evade the issue of "fair use," THEN I (a supporter of copyright in principle, but a believer that current law is way out of whack) would support Uri Geller. Since I believe that even if he does own the copyright in question, an 8-second clip being used as a demonstration of a hypothesis is, by definition, "fair use," I can believe in copyright and still call Geller out as a douche who is attempting to use misinterpreted (being generous) copyright law as a hammer against his critics.

No I mustn't. I can support fair use of small clips for things such as bonafide criticism of a performance. It is completely consistent with my stance on copyright to deride Geller's use of DMCA to muzzle those who would expose his methods. The case in point concerns 8 SECONDS of video. I call that fair use, consistent with my support of copyright law.